 |
| P. Leyser was an editor of the Book of Concord and the biographer of Martin Chemnitz. He knew something about justification by faith. |
LPC has left a new comment on your post "David Clearwood Boisclair - Trying To Rescue Roman...":
Rev. Boisclair says
As to the "us" of Romans 4:25 it could also refer to the "us" of all humanity as well as to the "us" of the regenerated (renati).
Are we reading the same verse? There is no "us" in 4:25. There is "our", the our there - the "our" which harkens back to "us" in 4:24. Perhaps that is what you mean.
However, the "us" refers to the Romans including St. Paul who is addressing the Roman Christians. So the "us" there does not refer to generic humanity it refers to those who (present tense) believe in Jesus. The KJV "if" is euphemistic.
It refers to those who believe in God who raised Jesus from the dead, and note the "our" that can not refer to the whole world which includes unbelievers, St. Paul says "who raised Jesus OUR Lord from the dead".
That is the OUR that mitigates against your theory
of 1932 Article 17 of the LC-MS Brief statement which states
Scripture teaches that God has already declared the whole world to be righteous in Christ, Rom. 5:19; 2 Cor. 5:18-21; Rom. 4:25;
Because in this verse(v.24) it clearly speaks of a future justification not a past one that has already occurred without reference to faith as your LC-MS doctrine of 1932 teaches.
In view of this, Romans 4:25 means that Jesus was raised with the view of the justification of those who would believe, not that the whole world has already been justified as a past event which your UOJ doctrine is teaching.
If Jesus did not rise from the dead, there is nothing for the sinner to believe and having nothing to believe, he has no justification to have. This is the central testimony of Christianity as St. Paul says in 1 Cor 15:17.
You can talk about what is not common to Huber and your UOJ but let us not discount, that this is something you have in common with him - the belief that all have already been justified at Jesus's resurrection. Do not comfort yourself on the things you differ from Huber, instead be bothered in the things you have in common with him!!!
Let us deal with the passage you believe teaches a justification that first happened without reference to faith, we can talk about the BoC etc next time. Let us first agree that Scripture is prima facie evidence first in any doctrinal discussion.
LPC
2 comments:
The intellectual venture, now suggests that faith does not save, but Christ? In all practicality, this is a non sequitur.
Dr. Cruz, from the quotation of Polycarp Leyser one can see that the error of Huber is his belief that forgiveness is CONFERRED upon all people without faith. This is what I have referred to as "Universal SUBJECTIVE Justification," which makes Samuel Huber a Universalist. The reason that the Synodical Conference doctrine of Objective Justification is opposed by you here is that you contend that it teaches Universalism. The other reason why you oppose it is that you believe it to be unscriptural.
While we believe in Objective Justification in accordance with our understanding of Scripture, we also condemn Universalism and the belief that one receives the forgiveness of sins apart from saving faith.
In my response to what "our" or "us" referred to it was in answer to the point made in a previous thread that I should take the context of Romans 4:25 into consideration.
I would ask that you be fair in judging our doctrine as I wish to be fair in judging your doctrine.
Post a Comment